State of Maine v. McDonough
This text of State of Maine v. McDonough (State of Maine v. McDonough) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Maine primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
1'.L
STA TE OF MAINE DISTRICTCOURT CUMBERLAND, ss. PORTLAND Docket No. CDCR-16-3752
STATE OF MAINE ) ) V. ) ORDER ON MOTION TO SUPPRESS ) STEVEN MCDONOUGH ) ) Defendant )
Defendant has been charged with criminal OUI pursuant to 29-A M .R.S. § 2411. Pending before the court is Defendant's Motion to Suppress, filed January 10, 2017 . The court held a hearing on Defendant's Motion to Suppress on February 2, 2017. Defendant appeared, represented by Attorney James Boulos. The State appeared, represented by Assistant District Attorney William Barry. The court heard testimony from Officer Bleicken of the Westbook Police Department, and admitted into evidence a hand-drawn diagram of the scene where Defendant's truck was found following its involvement in a single-vehicle accident. Counsel filed post-hearing memoranda on February 3, 2017. At hearing, Officer Bleicken described being dispatched to the scene of an accident and testified that upon arrival at the scene he observed Defendant's vehicle jammed between a concrete pole and a footbridge. It appeared that Defendant had gone around a concrete barrier erected along Bridge Street. Officer Bleicken testified that he approached the passenger's side of the vehicle, and that Officer Clark, who was there at the time, approached the driver's side. Officer Bleicken testified that Officer Clark was the first to speak to Defendant, and that he heard part of their conversation, including Defendant's comment of "definitely OUI." No testimony was introduced from Officer Clark, as Officer Clark was not present at the hearing . I i L Defendant contends that suppression is warranted on the ground that, because it was Officer Clark who asked Defendant to exit the vehicle, in the absence of testimony from Officer Clark, the State has not rhet its burden of showing the requisite reasonable articulable suspicion for the command to exit. ,
The "reasonable articulable suspicion" standard is well-established. The Law Court has repeatedly noted that: An investigatory stop is justified if the officer at the time of the stop has an articulable suspicion that criminal conduct has taken place, is occurring, or imminently will occur, and the officer's assessment of the existence of specific and articulable facts sufficient to warrant the stop is objectively reasonable in the totality of the circumstances. The reasonable suspicion standard requires less than probable cause that a crime was being committed, but more than speculation or an unsubstantiated hunch.
State v. Vaughan, 2009 ME 63, ~ 10 (quoting State v. Sampson, 669 A.3d 1326, 1328). See also State v King, 2009 ME 14, ~ 6 ("an officer may undertake field sobriety testing, 'like any other investigatory stop, if at the time the officer has an articulable suspicion, objectively reasonable in light of all the circumstances, that the object of the search has committed or is about to commit a crime."') (quoting State v. Wood, 662 A.2d 919, 920 (Me. 1995)). Defendant posits his argument as if this case involved a traffic stop effected by Officer Clark such that Officer Clark's absence from the hearing would frustrate the State's ability to show that at the time the officer pulled Defendant's vehicle over he had an objectively reasonable basis for doing so. Here, however, Westbrook Police Officers were dispatched to the scene of an accident involving Defendant's vehicle. Officer Bleicken was present and personally observed Defendant's vehicle where it had come to rest after encountering a concrete barrier. While Officer Clark was the first to engage Defendant in conversation, and apparently was the one who asked Defendant to exit the vehicle (Officer Bleicken's testimony is not clear on this point, but at hearing defense counsel and ADA Barry argued as if it were), Officer Clark's testimony is not required in order for the State to meet its burden in this case. The evidence adduced at trial -- consisting of the diagram of the accident -scene and Officer Bleicken's l I testimony respecting his personal observations of the accident scene, his observation that Defendant's speech was "slurred" and his overhearing of Defendant's comments during Officer Clark's questioning -- provides specific and articulable facts which, under the totality of the circumstances, justify a reasonable suspicion that Defendant had been driving while under the influence.
,_ I
2 Accordingly, because the evidence adduced at hearing establishes the requisite reasonable articulable suspicion, it is hereby. ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Suppress is DENIED.
, DATED: 7 ~~ )) Judge, niform Criminal Court
3 STATE'OF MAiNE CRIMINAL DOCKET VS CUMBERLAND, ss. STEVEN MCDONOUGH Docket No CUMCD-CR-2016-03752 145 KING STREET WESTBROOK ME 04092 DOCKET RECORD DOB: 07/26/1962 Attorney: JAMES BOULOS State's Attorney: STEPHANIE ANDERSON THE BOULOS LAW FIRM PO BOX 856 75 NORTH ST SACO ME 04072-0856 RETAINED 07/06/2016 Charge(s) 1 our (ALCOHOL) 06/26/2016 WESTBROOK Seq 12942 29-A 2411(1-A)(A) Class D
Docket Events: 06/29/2016 FILING DOCUMENT - NON CASH BAIL BOND FILED ON 06/29/2016
06/29/2016 Charge(s): 1 HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT SCHEDULE OTHER COURT ON 08/16/2016 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No.
PORSC 06/29/2016 BAIL BOND- $1,500.00 UNSECURED BAIL BOND FILED ON 06/29/2016
Bail Amt: $1,500 Date Bailed: 06/26/2016 409 07/06/2016 Party(s): STEVEN MCDONOUGH ATTORNEY - RETAINED ENTERED ON 07/06/2016
Attorney: JAMES BOULOS 08/02/2016 Charge(s): I SUPPLEMENTAL FILING - COMPLAINT FILED ON 08/02/2016
08/18/2016 Charge(s): 1 · HEARING - ARRAIGNMENT WAIVED ON 08/16/2016 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No .
08/18/2016 Charge(s): 1 PLEA - NOT GUILTY ENTERED BY COUNSEL ON 08/16/2016 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No.
08/18/2016 Charge(s): l HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE SCHEDULED FOR 11/J0/2016 at l 0:00 a.m. in Room No. 7
08/18/2016 Charge(s): I TRIAL - JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 01/09/2017 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 10/25/2016 Charge(s): I HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE NOTICE SENT ON 10/25/2016
11/10/2016 Charge(s): I HEARING - DISPOSITIONAL CONFERENCE HELD ON 11/10/2016 THOMAS D WARREN JUSTICE I
Attorney: JAMES BOULOS CR-200 Page l of 3 Printed on: 02/10/2017 STEVEN MCDONOUGH CUMCD-CR-2016-03752 DOCKET RECORD DA: BRENDAN O'BRIEN MOTION TO BE FILED. CASE UNRESOLVED. 11/28/2016 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL JURY TRIAL NOTICE SENT ON 11/28/2016
01/10/2017 Charge~s): 1 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL CONTINUED ON 01/10/2017 NANCY MILLS , JUSTICE MOTIONS FILED - TO BE HEARD 1/24/17 01/10/2017 Charge(s): 1 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/10/2017
TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT 01/10/2017 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS STATEMENT FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/10/2017
01/10/2017 MOTION - MOTION TO SUPPRESS EVIDENCE FILEb BY DEFENDANT ON 01/10/2017
01/10/2017 OTHER FILING - REQUEST FOR CHEMIST AT TRIAL FILED ON Ol/10/20l7
01/10/2017 MOTION - MOTlON FOR DISCOVERY FILED BY DEFENDANT ON Ol/I0/2017
01/10/2017 MOTION - MOTION EXPERT WITNESS REPORT FT! .FD BY DEFENDANT ON 01/10/2017
01/10/2017 MOTION - MOTION FOR DISCOVERY FILED BY DEFENDANT ON 01/10/2017
01/10/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS SCHEDULED FOR 01/24/2017 at 01 :00 p.m. in Room No .
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL Ol/10/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS NOTICE SENT ON 01/10/2017 J!M PAUL TURCOTTE, ASSISTANT CLERK OJ/10/20I7 Charge(s): 1 TRIAL- JURY TRIAL SCHEDULED FOR 02/13/2017 at 08:30 a.m. in Room No. 11
NOTICE TO PARTIES/COUNSEL 01/27/2017 HEARING - MOTION TO SUPPRESS CONTINUED ON 01/27/2017
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
State of Maine v. McDonough, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/state-of-maine-v-mcdonough-mesuperct-2017.